About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
you want to hit on. and then we'll open it up from more conversation. >> thanks, jon. first, i just want to thank martin and tom for the very gracious comment and i think quite helpful insights about the dodd-frank act. so i might just take 2 minutes or 3 minutes to highlight some issues and then we can open it up on -- or jon can lead us through conversation. on martin's comment, i think i agree with an aspect of martin's comments on resolution authority. if there is -- if there is an error in the dodd-frank act on the mix of crisis tools which undoubtedly it will be. it's in the direction martin indicated, in the direction of being overly constraining of treasury and the fed of the crisis. i don't think the error -- often in the public debate people suggest errors is the other direction. i think martin is correct. if we erred in limiting authorities, not in being -- not to insufficiently tough about them. on tom's comments, i do think there's always this debate in the regulatory structure. it's impossible to escape between rules and discretion. it's a debate that's been around for
, waste of government money. well, there is a reason that jon mccain and barack obama both voted for the bailout. it is not because of wall street. it is because the main street in the biggest car dealership in the country that stopped financing cars is about to get to the point where you could go to sears and buy any kind of appliance on credit. the financial system had to be saved. we don't want to go there again. so most people did know this. they said we hate these bailouts. the democrats passed a financial reform bill, which gave the government power over some transactions it did not have to stop excessive leverage, that is to stop companies from making too many investments they didn't have the cash to cover. traditional banks would own $10 for every dollar in cash. when bear stearns failed in his 30 to one. lehman brothers about four to one. that's what's really in a financial reform bill. and by the way, if somehow they get around this and fail again, nomar bailouts. here's an orderly procedure for bankruptcy in the management and shareholders have to beat the loss. in oth
? >> i don't know how to answer that, jon. i was laughing over at you. i was looking at amy friend who joined us and amy and i had lots of conversations that were about that very topic. and amy was right more than i was about the answers to that question. but they were usually pretty pessimistic answers. so what do you do? i mean, it's like any other constraint. i mean, we live in the world we live in. and not in a different world. and the political system is no different than that. and it's much better to design good policy that works for the world you live in than to design policy that works for a world you don't live in. so i think not just being pig headed is the answer i would give. >> well, there is a moment in history when it's a little hard to be optimistic about policy. everything is so polarized. my colleagues at brookings that congress is more polarized. that is to say the most liberal republican is more conservative than the most conservative democrat so working out agreements in that environment is pretty difficult. to take a slightly more positive turn, i think we do pass
.gton journal" host: we are back live jon hilsenrath of "the wall street journal." taking a look at this week's economic rebound, that is what the- taking a look at weak economic rebound. here is the headline from "the wall street journal" this morning, "companies bracing for the fall." guest: american companies are operating in a very >> they have already been disappointed by what happened in the first half of the year. i've been talking to companies in the last few days. i'm winnebago industries, a rv company, that was expected to have good spending in the first half. this didn't happen. they are back to deciding whether or not to cut back on that. what they don't want right now is uncertainty. that's what we are getting. >> host: you see the ups chief in todays "financial times" the small and mid sized companies that would be using his are pulling back. they are not sure. >> guest: right. this is largely, i think, because of the uncertainty they face. default, downgrade, you never now how investors are going to react. ironically what we have seen, investors have been calm. but the worry i
on a diet. i'm going to add calories to my excluded food intake." unquote. that was jon stewart. he hit the nail on the head. for sure it's easy to make fun but what the president is trying to do with tax expenditures is no laughing matter. liberals talk about tax expenditures as though they were just getting rid of wasteful spending. first, as a legal matter, tax expenditures are not spending. outlays are checks cut from the treasury department are defined as spending under the congressional budget act. that's what spending is. yet, most tax expenditures only lose revenue and do not include an outlay portion. tax expenditures that only lose revenue contain no spending as defined by the congressional budget act and is scored by the official scorekeepers for congress. the joint committee on taxation and the congressional budget office. and second, as a policy matter twhe comes to tax -- when it comes to tax expenditures, one person's loophole is another person's opportunity to save for college and retirement, finance a home and ties to your -- taoeugts -- tithes to your church. reducing
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)